m4elite wrote..It doesn't prove anything. If nothing else, it just means they're testing the waters with 1.6 as it IS the most played online game out there that they have. CS: Source being the second most. There's still a chance it'll come to Source later.
you'd be sticking it to yourself by not playing.
It just proves they fucking blew it with source and have to resort to a game they did not even make to reap money.
DaRk-AnGeL wrote..gtfo at least valve is still patching their games (including HL1 on occasion), EA/Dice stops supporting their games after about a year. maybe if you stop crying long enough you'll be able to see that.
Maybe they should fix bugs and improve gameplay first before shoving ads down our throats ?
m4elite wrote..Stop thinking like you are and try thinking like a business for once. They're testing the waters with their most popular brand that the most players play, that has the most player minutes. If it's fine there, then they get an instant payoff.
You would not test the waters in a game with the most players, you would do that with SOURCE.
Oh, now that you said it doesn't prove anything, looks like it doesn't!
It proves they have no clue how to make a multiplayer game, at all.
Already scrapped cs:s's cash value for an old ass game they didn't even make.
Zips wrote..No, thats what you are saying, I am saying they don't have a LARGE AUDIENCE to put ads in front of customers with cs:s, so they rely on a game someone else made, to make profit.
You're trying to say they don't know how to make a game because they're not adding ads into it immediately? That sort of thinking is absurd at best.
m4elite wrote..CS: Source has over 2 BILLION+ player minutes per month. It is their second largest online game. How can you even say they don't have a "large audience?" It's enormous, but as it is, CS1.6 is larger as it has been out there longer and is able to be played on far more machines than Source is.
No, thats what you are saying, I am saying they don't have a LARGE AUDIENCE to put ads in front of customers with cs:s, so they rely on a game someone else made, to make profit.
Thus proving the older - better game, wins once again.
Zips wrote..I can't fucking stand your extreme bias towards reality, you said TEST THE WATERS, I respond with why it can't be TESTING when you jump STRAIGHT INTO IT, you then turn it around into some retarded discussion of god knows what that does not make sense, once again.
CS: Source has over 2 BILLION+ player minutes per month. It is their second largest online game. How can you even say they don't have a "large audience?" It's enormous, but as it is, CS1.6 is larger as it has been out there longer and is able to be played on far more machines than Source is.
If you're going to add ads into a game, then you probably want to go with your largest game. Why? Because the reason ads are even being added in the first place is to generate more revenue from those ads, so what better way than to go with your largest game with your largest audience? That is NOT to say Source won't get the ads in the future, hell, it's not to say that Source will get the ads either. But no matter if it does or not, trying to say that Source wouldn't benefit Valve in terms of adding in-game ads just does not make any sense.
To deny the popularity of CS: Source is nothing more than turning a blind eye to the truth. CS was made as a mod, but it is now Valve's game. So 1.6 is Valve's game. Source was made with those same guys on board as well (You might know them as Cliffe and Gooseman) with a larger staff from both Valve and Turtle Rock Studios.
Comment